Modules do not have to be tested *before* they appear in trunk. That's putting the cart before the horse. Part of the development process (while in trunk) is doing the testing portion. And hey... if it never gets tested, then it gets marked as "experimental" and we all move on.
Cheers, -g On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 15:05, Michael Felt <mamf...@gmail.com> wrote: > Seems dangerous to even comment in this flow - but as I am all about > thinking "testing" at the moment - is there any thought about how to test > this. From a packaging point of view I would expect tooling to be able to > test are "included" functions. As a user I would expect anything in trunk > (what I would call main) to be guaranteed. > > I cannot have an opinion about the reasoning for placing something in, or > not in "trunk", and I would expect something to at least have gone through > some sort of testing process - live testing - before committing anything to > a product/service. Before testing was completed I would only dare speaking > of an intention to add. > > Isnt it something along the lines of: "The proof of the pudding is the > eating". > > To me this is just mod_foo, and as far as I know it has never been tested. > (If it is already in trunk maybe I have already compiled it and just do not > know it :p) - and that alone would make me postpone a non-reversible > decision. > > Makes me think of what someone old and wise said to me when I was young: you > (or she) only has to say Yes, or even (yes) once. > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 1, 2012 1:29 PM, "Jim Jagielski" <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mar 1, 2012, at 1:11 PM, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> > >> > > Let's simply reset this whole mess. >> > > >> > > A proposal to adopt mod_firehose is attached. >> > > >> > > [X] Option 1: adopt as trunk module >> > > [ ] Option 2: adopt only as subproject >> > > [ ] Option 3: do not adopt >> >> +1 for Option 1. > >
